Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds a meaningful behavioral restriction beyond what the annotations alone provide: only drafts are editable, and attempts on other states will fail. The destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations already convey the mutation profile, and the schema's 'Replacement' wording covers replacing fields. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences say everything necessary: what the tool does and which states are excluded. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant context, and the most important state restriction is placed prominently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Together with the complete schema descriptions and rich annotations, the description is enough for correct invocation: it identifies the target state, the operation, and the impossibility of other states. The only minor gap is that it does not mention what the response or return value is, but with no output schema this is not a required part of successful invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all eight parameters, their purposes, and their roles. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema carries that burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Updates a DRAFT post,' which immediately distinguishes this tool from scheduling, approving, or publishing tools. The explicit constraint 'Other states are not editable here' further clarifies the exact scope of the operation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear when-to-use condition: only for draft posts. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use boundary: other states are not editable here. While it does not name a specific alternative tool, the state restriction is unambiguous and enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.